DMG EQuilibrium

[vicoli]

In FIR mode, for Phase, what's the difference between "analogue" and "zero-latency analogue"? The manual says,

Analogue and Zero-latency analogue provide the same cumulative minimum phase response as hardware.

Since they provide the same "cumulative minimum phase response" as each other, how do they differ?

One has latency?

Developers shouldn't add counterproductive modes just to make products look like they have more features, IMHO. Just kidding, I don't think DMG did that. But, seriously, I'd appreciate some scientific answers from DMG, so I can use these features, please? Equilibrium has more modes than FabFilter; but I don't understand them, so in my hands, Equilibrium so far is like FabFilter with some extra modes which I'm afraid to use because I don't know what they are.

[vicoli]

Actually, none of my questions have been answered by searching Gearslutz. In comparison, Pro-Q comes with documentation and video tutorials which have excellently guided me in using Pro-Q effectively.

[Hermetech Mastering]

LMGTFY:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/8884023-post27.html

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/9161783-post606.html

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product ... st10547975

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... l#p5945923

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... l#p5944991

[vicoli]

In FIR mode, for Phase, what's the difference between "analogue" and "zero-latency analogue"? The manual says,

Analogue and Zero-latency analogue provide the same cumulative minimum phase response as hardware.

Since they provide the same "cumulative minimum phase response" as each other, how do they differ?

One has latency?

What would be the purpose in choosing the option with latency, when the zero-latency option is available? Why would you ever choose to add useless latency? Why would an equalizer-design include a mode to add useless latency?

[Hermetech Mastering]

What would be the purpose in choosing the option with latency, when the zero-latency option is available? Why would you ever choose to add useless latency? Why would an equalizer-design include a mode to add useless latency?

And why would you ask on a forum, when you could email Dave directly?

[jbraner]

What would be the purpose in choosing the option with latency, when the zero-latency option is available? Why would you ever choose to add useless latency? Why would an equalizer-design include a mode to add useless latency?

Maybe you get a better sound, or lower CPU with the latency - and (ever so slightly) worse sound and/or higher CPU with the zero latency.

Dave knows all this stuff...

[standalone]

It's only a matter of saving processor power. If you are not in a live situation not using the zero latency option will give you better computer performance.

But if your daw of choice doesn't shine at perfect delay compensation you may want to use the zero latency option on your plugins when available.

[padillac]

My reading of the Equilibrium manual suggests that you really need to know a lot about EQs to make sense of it. There's a lot of "Equilibrium has X" but you're on your own to figure out what X is and what it means for you.

It's like a textbook that's over my head, with no glossary. I just write down words and phrases that I don't understand, and research them from there.

Of course, if all you want to do is EQ sounds, you don't need to know all that stuff But it's definitely an engineering nerd's EQ, and requires a lot of in-depth knowledge in order to grok the settings in my opinion.

[standalone]

They also have EQuick for those that want an easy to operate, high quality EQ.
http://dmgaudio.com/products_equick.php

[vicoli]

In FIR mode, for Phase, what's the difference between "analogue" and "zero-latency analogue"? The manual says,

Analogue and Zero-latency analogue provide the same cumulative minimum phase response as hardware.

Since they provide the same "cumulative minimum phase response" as each other, how do they differ?

It's only a matter of saving processor power. If you are not in a live situation not using the zero latency option will give you better computer performance.

But if your daw of choice doesn't shine at perfect delay compensation you may want to use the zero latency option on your plugins when available.

I just tested, and it's not just a matter of processor power. "Analogue" and "zero-latency analogue" actually yield different audio. I set up two tracks, with the same source material (an impulse) on both tracks. On one track I put Equilibrium in "analog" mode, and on the other track I put Equilibrium in "zero-latency analogue" mode, and they do not null -- i.e., they yield different audio.

[vicoli]

It's like a textbook that's over my head, with no glossary. I just write down words and phrases that I don't understand, and research them from there.

That will work for the terms "linear phase" and "minimum phase", because those terms have precise meanings in engineering circles, and you can ascertain those meanings with research.

Research will not, however, enable you to learn what DMG means by the terms "IIRDigital+Compensation", "IIRDigital+Phase", "FIR Analog Mode", and "FIR Zero-Latency Analog Mode", because these are terms which were coined by DMG and have no meaning determined by engineering conventions.

[djscorb]

But why do you care if you are a Pro-Q user? There is little point in using both plugins and clearly you prefer the Fabfilter so use that and move on.

There are people out there that do know a lot already about EQ and don't have the same issues understanding equilibriums features and settings. It's a deep tool and I wouldn't want to see DMG dumbing things down to suit users who would be better served with Fabfilter's approach.

If there are naming conventions in equilibrium that seem to have no precedent elsewhere then that is because they are new and DMG have to call the something right? Conventions have to start somewhere and it seems pretty lame to complain about something genuinely new not having any!

As for zl analog and analog modes sounding different, of course they do! They have different impulses for a start. What would be the point if they sounded the same?

If you have questions you should drop Dave a mail, he's always very helpful.

I still don't understand why you are interested in Equilibrium at all though if you have Pro-Q, it's simply not necessary to have both imo.

Cheers

Scorb

[vicoli]

... There is little point in using both plugins...

How do you figure that?

... if you are a Pro-Q user....

I'm an Equilibrium user.

... why do you care...?

I'm an Equilibrium user.

I wouldn't want to see DMG dumbing things down to suit users who would be better served with Fabfilter's approach.

My unanswered questions are "dumb", yet you don't know the answers?

There are people out there that... don't have the same issues understanding equilibriums features and settings.

What did you see that makes you believe that? Where have you seen the answers? Post a link, please?

If my questions about Equilibrium and my comparison of Equilibrium to Pro-Q disturb you, I'm sincerely sorry for that. I'm trying to find out how my equalizer works, though, and that's more important to me than the emotions of DMG fans who'd rather I withheld my questions and opinions.

[kylen]

I like the idea of a manual update also. I went thru it again yesterday and wondered why I would use a particular setting. Not being a DSP expert it's back to the wizard! I think Dave browses the forums from time to time and may decide to expound on some questions he sees for the next manual update. Otherwise we get to guess and 'help' each other with misleading information...

[DaveGamble]

I'm trying to understand the difference between IIR and IIRDigital+Compensation modes -- trying to understand technically what the manual means by "the extra edge" on page 19. Are IIR and IIRDigital+Compensation modes supposed to yield different magnitude responses? I'm testing (running my DAW at 48,000Hz) on pink noise, with a bell filter at 22,000Hz, and when I turn Digital+Compensation on (set to 512) and off, I see no difference in the magnitude response shown in the Equilibrium analyzer. I also see no difference using Voxengo SPAN. Is my method of testing defective, or is the difference too small to show up on these analyzers? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of IIRDigital+Compensation mode, and it's not actually about changing the magnitude response?

No, everything is working as expected.
So, it is a fact that a digital EQ response cannot perfectly match an analogue EQ response simply because there IS a Nyquist. But you can get insanely close. The last 12 years of EQ research for me has been about getting absurdly close, and that's in EQuilibrium.

Digital+ compensation is a very simple idea - measure the difference between the analogue and digital responses and design an FIR filter to fix the error. Digital+ without phase just fixes the magnitude response. Digital+Phase fixes both phase and magnitude responses.

There should, in general, be virtually no improvement between Digital+ and regular IIR. It +SHOULD+ be extremely hard to measure and negligible in its difference. That means my maths is working well.

However, if I'm going to release what I consider the finest EQ built by human hands, it damn well needs to work 100% of the time. So Digital+ is there to catch any edge cases.

Hope this helps.

Dave.